how far is too far: houdini for sell?

[bob]

Trying to find a perfect definition for what a derivative is, is a fools errand.

Judging by the mounting evidence, the synonym du jour for derivative is "Crafty".

Cordially,

Sean

How, exactly, does "crafty" become a synonym for "derivative" since it is clearly original. Did you mean "antonym" instead?

[Ralph Stoesser]

Rybka 1.6.1 [..] was a full copy of Crafty

I read that Rybka 1.6.1 was at 2100 ELO level. Can you tell us where the 'full copy' job went wrong, since Crafty was much stronger at that time.

[rodolfoleoni]

Let me point out, Rybka versions prior to version 4 used Code from Crafty (rotated bitboard stuff).

How do you know? Up to now only versions up to 2.3.2a have been examined.

Because Vas stated that version 4 moved from rotated bitboards to magic multiply. How easy was that to answer???

Bob - I'd heard that a couple of members of the panel examined Rybka 3 and Rybka 4 and found them clean?

Totally false. What was looked for was for a big eval change to figure out where Larry Kaufman's influence entered the equation. Mark found it to be in version 3...

To the best of MY knowledge, no one has done the detailed RE comparison between Rybka 3 and Fruit that was done with the pre-3.0 versions... I am not sure this will be done unless Vas asks for it and provides source to prove that the later ones actually are original...

These words seem to represent a way out for Vas. "To prove that the later ones actually are ORIGINAL", I mean. Could they really be considered original?

All he has to do is to agree on a 3rd party to look at his source and compare it to fruit / crafty to see if it is now fully original. If so, I'd consider those programs OK. And I'd suspect the ICGA would allow him to return to competition if they are proven to be clean.

I see a parallel with the case of Houdini...

[Rebel]

I don't feel that I'm a victim of anything here. Your argument should be with the ICGA not talkchess forum members who had nothing to do with the decision.

Please realize the topic has been derailed at the moment. It started with the CSVN faults where I used some pot-kettle arguments in return.

If you want to play judge and jury you can't have jury members who have an interest in a guilty verdict. It's just wrong. Any judge would send them home.

I am not your enemy in this debate.

The ICGA is not blameless in its procedures.

On top of that there was uncalled attack from David on the CSVN 6 months before the notorious CSVN announcement about Rybka appeared. I am copying and paste now:

---------------------------------------

From the Secretariat report:

encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven “clean”.

And so 2 of the 3 major tournaments a year were destroyed by an open-letter because the CSVN had another view on a sloppy procedure.

But the attack on the CSVN has been initiated by Levy himself on the chessvibes "Attack of the Clones" article:

David Levy
Fringe Problems
There is one other type of offence that I would like to mention here in connection with cloning, namely entering a cloned program created by someone other than the entrant, in a tournament, with the entrant knowing it be a clone. One might draw an analogy between the criminal law offence of theft and the crime of handling goods knowing them to be stolen. This offence in the computer chess world is similar to one that recently caused something of a scandal in the Netherlands, when a board member of the Dutch Computer Chess Association (CSVN), the body that organises the prestigious Leiden tournaments entered a pirated copy of Junior in one of the major online annual tournaments. (See here for more details.) Put simply, if someone knows that a program has been ripped off, either by cloning or through piracy, they will not be permitted to use a ripped off copy to compete in any ICGA event.

Why this attack out of the blue ?

Cock's defence: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid370022

A storm in a cup of tea.

But the most important thing: Levy was a mediator in this case.

A mediator should keep his mouth shut.

--------------------------------------------------

Please reconcile. These 2 tournaments are there for you.

[Terry McCracken]

You're hopeless. You don't give a damn what the ICGA has ruled.
You won't stop defending this idiot until a court decides. You've told me this countless times. You hate Houdini or so you say but continue to test it along with Rybka and you say you're not taking sides, give me a break.

Which programs the ICGA decides to exclude from their tournaments is none of my business. I am not a programmer, so I'm not in a position to question their findings.

Yes, I'd like to see an FSF ruling on Rybka because they are seen as being independent of the computer chess scene. I am hopeful that such a ruling would bring some finality to the issue for those who are still uneasy or unhappy what's happened. After all, look at the mess that our hobby is currently in.

Yes, both Rybka and Houdini (along with a few other "controversial" engines marked as such) are in the CCRL rating lists, so I include them in my testing. I can see how you might perceive this to be my defending Vas, but the group's stance is made clear in the notes at the start of each update report that gets posted.

You may have to accept the ICGA as the FSF may or may not pursue this with diligence and even if they do it might take years.

I can see this dragging well into this decade. I hope not.

ICGA rules are only obligatory for members and tourney participians.

Month by month passes by, the proves of copyright infringement are allegedly overwhelming, but still nothing has changed. Rybka still being sold as closed source, Rybka 5 commercial being in the pipeline.

The interesting question to me is what if the FSF will not take any action at all?

If they don't this will go on after we all die.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hello Bob,

after my information rotated bitboards are from Fortress programmer Alexandro Damiani. A jung student in switzerland who develops this. I had much contacts with him in the past and I think he wrote about it around 1997 or 1998.

Best
Frank

[geots]

You're hopeless. You don't give a damn what the ICGA has ruled.
You won't stop defending this idiot until a court decides. You've told me this countless times. You hate Houdini or so you say but continue to test it along with Rybka and you say you're not taking sides, give me a break.

Which programs the ICGA decides to exclude from their tournaments is none of my business. I am not a programmer, so I'm not in a position to question their findings.

Yes, I'd like to see an FSF ruling on Rybka because they are seen as being independent of the computer chess scene. I am hopeful that such a ruling would bring some finality to the issue for those who are still uneasy or unhappy what's happened. After all, look at the mess that our hobby is currently in.

Yes, both Rybka and Houdini (along with a few other "controversial" engines marked as such) are in the CCRL rating lists, so I include them in my testing. I can see how you might perceive this to be my defending Vas, but the group's stance is made clear in the notes at the start of each update report that gets posted.

You may have to accept the ICGA as the FSF may or may not pursue this with diligence and even if they do it might take years.

I can see this dragging well into this decade. I hope not.

I do not have to accept the ICGA

FSF is the only organization that may take legal steps against Vas and I assume innocent unless proven quilty by court and the ICGA is not court.

It is possible that I am going to buy Rybka5(dependent on the playing strength of Rybka5) and
I do not think that I risk something if I buy a new version of rybka.

Even if Rybka is illegal then there is no rule that I am supposed to know it
and even if I know that it is illegal then the question is who is the victim
of my actions.

Fabien does not sell Fruit for years so he does not lose money in case that I buy Rybka.
Bob Hyatt also does not lose money so who is going to lose money from it?

It is not the same as buying a stolen car when if I have it the owner of the car does not have it.

Count me as one who agrees with every sentence you wrote. And I will be buying Rybka 5 for sure- probably 2 copies.


Best,

gts

[Terry McCracken]

You're hopeless. You don't give a damn what the ICGA has ruled.
You won't stop defending this idiot until a court decides. You've told me this countless times. You hate Houdini or so you say but continue to test it along with Rybka and you say you're not taking sides, give me a break.

Which programs the ICGA decides to exclude from their tournaments is none of my business. I am not a programmer, so I'm not in a position to question their findings.

Yes, I'd like to see an FSF ruling on Rybka because they are seen as being independent of the computer chess scene. I am hopeful that such a ruling would bring some finality to the issue for those who are still uneasy or unhappy what's happened. After all, look at the mess that our hobby is currently in.

Yes, both Rybka and Houdini (along with a few other "controversial" engines marked as such) are in the CCRL rating lists, so I include them in my testing. I can see how you might perceive this to be my defending Vas, but the group's stance is made clear in the notes at the start of each update report that gets posted.

You may have to accept the ICGA as the FSF may or may not pursue this with diligence and even if they do it might take years.

I can see this dragging well into this decade. I hope not.

I do not have to accept the ICGA

FSF is the only organization that may take legal steps against Vas and I assume innocent unless proven quilty by court and the ICGA is not court.

It is possible that I am going to buy Rybka5(dependent on the playing strength of Rybka5) and
I do not think that I risk something if I buy a new version of rybka.

Even if Rybka is illegal then there is no rule that I am supposed to know it
and even if I know that it is illegal then the question is who is the victim
of my actions.

Fabien does not sell Fruit for years so he does not lose money in case that I buy Rybka.
Bob Hyatt also does not lose money so who is going to lose money from it?

It is not the same as buying a stolen car when if I have it the owner of the car does not have it.

Count me as one who agrees with every sentence you wrote. And I will be buying Rybka 5 for sure- probably 2 copies.


Best,

gts

Why are you such an obnoxious jerk? Who cares who you agree with or if you buy every R5 program???

Grow Up!

[geots]

Code: Select all

The main criticism on [a] is that the ICGA gave Rybka's direct competitors a vote of whom many had an interest in a guilty verdict. 

Ed,

This is something I want to challenge. We have heard this over and over again and I find it incredibly offensive. It's used as the primary explanation for why Rybka has been removed from ICGA tournaments, and yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

There has been talk of slander and ruining the reputation of others, but this is the most incredible piece of nonsense I have heard in this affair. And in all the talk about "facts" and "getting proof" and so on, why is this not challenged? Do you have some facts here? Do you have statements from his "jealous competitors" that prove this was the clear motive? Perhaps an email or something where one of Rybka's primary competitors said we must get rid of Rybka because it is too strong?

Otherwise, what right do you have for impugning the character of so many good people? If you don't agree with the decision, is the only recourse to impugn the character of a number of well respected computer scientists and program authors? Don't you have any compassion at all for people that you would resort to ad hominem assaults on good people in order attack the facts that they present?

Don

Hi Don,

You have my sympathy here of course. These allegations are totally uncalled for in my personal judgement. But realize what I saying, I don't accuse the voters. I accuse the system that allowed it.

It makes people doubt the procedure and portray the ones that voted guilty having an agenda. You and others became the victim of a wrong procedure.

Such pretence should have been avoided by all means, don't you think?

Best to you.

Ed

I don't feel that I'm a victim of anything here. Your argument should be with the ICGA not talkchess forum members who had nothing to do with the decision. There were no "voters", except perhaps the ICGA board members themselves. The only thing we can get from talking about it here is a bunch of opinions, a lot of hurt feelings and a lot of time wasted.

Even if the discussion remains civilized there is not much to be gained unless it actually promotes some kind of positive action. But the vast majority of us do not believe that there is a problem to be solved.

but we can avoid future ones?

What is the problem to be solved here? Is it how to get the ICGA to not make rulings that we disagree with? If the decision had gone differently would you have perceived that there was a big problem with the "process?"

I complained about the process before even started. 2/3 of the Secretariat, at least, should have recused themselves.

I don't know what else to say here, it's all been said. Vas has not responded, but those who sympathize with him have served as his puppet and use all the tactics commonly used by people caught red-handed. Justify, minimize, shift the blame and attack the accuser.

Ed (as far as I understand) is not blaming the accuser in this thread, he is blaming a procedure. I said this before, this process was flawed beyond repair.

Miguel

Miguel, when you say it was flawed, you are being too easy on them. I think you should have probably added "rigged" also.


Best,

gts

[S.Taylor]

You're hopeless. You don't give a damn what the ICGA has ruled.
You won't stop defending this idiot until a court decides. You've told me this countless times. You hate Houdini or so you say but continue to test it along with Rybka and you say you're not taking sides, give me a break.

Which programs the ICGA decides to exclude from their tournaments is none of my business. I am not a programmer, so I'm not in a position to question their findings.

Yes, I'd like to see an FSF ruling on Rybka because they are seen as being independent of the computer chess scene. I am hopeful that such a ruling would bring some finality to the issue for those who are still uneasy or unhappy what's happened. After all, look at the mess that our hobby is currently in.

Yes, both Rybka and Houdini (along with a few other "controversial" engines marked as such) are in the CCRL rating lists, so I include them in my testing. I can see how you might perceive this to be my defending Vas, but the group's stance is made clear in the notes at the start of each update report that gets posted.

You may have to accept the ICGA as the FSF may or may not pursue this with diligence and even if they do it might take years.

I can see this dragging well into this decade. I hope not.

I do not have to accept the ICGA

FSF is the only organization that may take legal steps against Vas and I assume innocent unless proven quilty by court and the ICGA is not court.

It is possible that I am going to buy Rybka5(dependent on the playing strength of Rybka5) and
I do not think that I risk something if I buy a new version of rybka.

Even if Rybka is illegal then there is no rule that I am supposed to know it
and even if I know that it is illegal then the question is who is the victim
of my actions.

Fabien does not sell Fruit for years so he does not lose money in case that I buy Rybka.
Bob Hyatt also does not lose money so who is going to lose money from it?

It is not the same as buying a stolen car when if I have it the owner of the car does not have it.

I was thinking that Fabian, or whoever, MIGHT have wanted to do something himself and cannot do it anymore because people are buying Rybka, which takes away anything that he might be able to do. So that Rybka is like part 2 of Fruit, which could only have been got to via part one. And it is Vas who is taking the money and credit for parts one AND 2.
If Fabian or whoever, had no further plans, then maybe it was allright to steal it from him, as he didn't need his innovation anymore.

If so, it IS like stealing a car. It's stealing his innovation. The owner then doesn't have it anymore.